Universe burnout-What's so hard about that

This is my first post and while I have more degrees than a thermometer none af them have anything to do with this forum. However, I love cosmology and have a few questions from the untrained perspective. I have written and published that the obvious is often the most difficult to see. I have always felt that all energy within the universe would burn itself out like everything else. My first clue came years ago upon learning our sun would burn out and the fact that stars go super nova. What has taken so long for the "experts" to come to that conclusion? Also, isn't the big bang obvious, given that things are moving away from each other, just like a large firework going off in the night sky on the fourth of July? Given that backdrop isn't it equally obvious that everything we see and know about is most likely housed by a much more sizable parallel entity.

"Is there an actual question in this post? I have no idea what kind of discussion you're hoping to generate."

Is this content contained within my thread not a question? "Given that backdrop isn't it equally obvious that everything we see and know about is most likely housed by a much more sizable parallel entity." Also; "What has taken so long for the "experts" to come to that conclusion?" Could it be that a lot of time is being wasted by adhering to the concept that one must use math to prove the obvious?

Your "backdrop" consist of a question that sounds more like an accusation: "What has taken so long for the "experts" to come to that conclusion?". Ever heard of entropy? Such a characterization is at best a few hundred years late and at worst hasn't been valid since, "In the beginning God created...". This "backdrop" continues with an, uhh.. problematic characterization of the Big Bang.

Now we get to what you now call your question. "Isn't it equally obvious that everything we see and know about is most likely housed by a much more sizable parallel entity."

Housed in what way? Are you saying the Big Bang is something that happened in this "house" or something that was caused by this "house"? "Parallel" seems to indicate that it wasn't even in the "house" but something separate from a larger "entity". Is the "entity" the same thing as the "house"?

There really is no way to decode a question. On the other hand there is a famous quote by Wolfgang Pauli that says "not even wrong". This basically means that by adjusting the definitions of house, parallel, and entity it is possible to not be wrong. It's like saying 'it's an electromagnetic phenomena'. Yes, true but so is a beach ball.

Accusatory or not, quite frankly I thought I was trying to ask a real question of you so-called experts. I am very serious when I ask: Given the backdrop that everything we know about energy is that it is not a unlimited source and there are no perpetual motion machines capable of being built then why are we in the 21st century before someone says that the universe will use up all its energy and go black? How was the cosmological intellectual reasoning so diverted such as to avoid that obvious conclusion? Who was the culprit that led the comologist astray? Those must be really tough questions for me to be berated for them!

Years ago one of you fellas came up with the bright idea that the universe would expand then contract back to another big bang. I also suspect that that the genius who developed that theory provided some sort of math formula that created a stream of logic such as would support the conclusion, at least enough so that the notion became the thought of the day amoungst some of his/her peers. However, my non-mathmatical common sense asked the question, "what is the energy source that is going to pull the universe back to the point of origin?" Which question I did not need math to arrive at, consequently, I never accepted that idea on the basis of common sense which is most likely not wrong.

So called experts can't just take a sentence with terms that can mean 100 things to 100 people and say "yeah, that's it". Perhaps you want the terms to be defined and explained for you. Yet this presents a problem because the terms were incongruent.

I don't even know in what way you mean by, "cosmological intellectual reasoning so diverted". Yet you say "isn't the big bang obvious". Do you know how old the Big Bang theory is? Much older than the term "Big Bang". We didn't even know about the Hubble expansion before 1929. Should we make a list of all the models that attempt to contextualize the Big Bang in a broader picture? There are plenty of them and we have no way at the moment of establishing which if any are correct. Is it your opinion that an "expert" is supposed to have all the answers for every aspect of the history of the Universe and beyond?

You predicated your question on the stupidity of "experts" and now seem upset that your question was perceived to lack answerable content. Sounds like a self fulfilled prophesy.

Greetings: my wan, it appears as if your head is screwed on with at least a couple of threads. Please take a moment to respond to my question number 7. I really am interested in the energy concept delineated therein. Given that information I think I can then solve the string theory problems for you.

"what is the energy source that is going to pull the universe back to the point of origin?"

You don't need some mysterious energy source: if the universe is closed (i.e. if the energy density of the universe is greater than the critical energy density) then it will collapse due to gravity at some time

Cristo's comment is at the heart of the debate on the possible contrasction of the universe. If there si enough total mass, the universe will collapse under tis own gravitationall pull, if there is less than that amount of mass, it will continue to expand forever. That amount of mass is called the "critical mass density," and all of our observations only seem to narrow down the actual amount of mass to somewhere between just over that amount to somewhere just under it.

Your question about where the energy would come from is a bit more complicated than you might realise. You see, the law of conservation says that energy can niether be created nor destroyed. So, if there was enough energy for 1 Big Bang, that same amount still exists. Now you could say that the amount of energy needed to pull the universe together is the same as the amount that was required to spread it out (same mass moving the same distance and all that), but that would be missleading. Better to say that amount opf energy needed to make the universe continue to expand against the force of gravity is emmense, and the total amount of energy released in the Big Bang may have been enough or it may not.

All of this, of course, is reasoning that was waiting for some observation to bring answers. Without knowing the total amount of mass in the universe, we must depend on observations of the rate of expansion. If we look at objects several million light-years away to see how fast the universe was expanding then, then some stuff only a couple thousand lgith-years away to see how fast its expanding now, we can see how much the expansion has slowed. Well, surprise...it hasn't! The expansion is accelerating! So, where is the energy for that coming from?

Lurch - I think your reasoning about any potential crunch is flawed and I think that what I am about to say will eventually be proven to be the case. I also think the string theory will be solved on the following basis. The energy source that gave rise to the big bang was blown to smithereens and is currently racing through space in the form of galaxies, black holes and all other things that comprise the universe. Since those energy particles are racing away from its explosive point of origin, nothing remains in sufficient size, quantity, mass, whatever as will, or can pull everything back to an epicentre. That said each and every smithereen is now acting upon itself and each other. It is that interrelationship that is currently causing the current cosmological confusion. The confusion being that the cosmologist has not yet slowed the happenings down enough to understand the interacting influences. When they do it will all fit within a single string theory. By they way, in my opinion black holes are mere vortex, tornado, cyclone caused by the enormous power of the big bang with one of those highly charged gravitational smithereens spinning off as would shrapnel from a typical bomb explosion. I know it is not exactly that simple but the analogy gives a visual image to relate the big bang to the black holes. I suspect that if you could take an atomic explosion and slow it down a few million or even a billion times, you would see every thing that is happening within our universe, after all it is nothing more than a big bang.

Since those energy particles are racing away from its explosive point of origin,

You appear to hold the misconception that the big bang was a conventional explosion, which took place at a point in space-- this is not the case. There is no centre of the universe, since there is no special place in the universe. Further, the big bang was not an explosion.

You appear to hold the misconception that the big bang was a conventional explosion, which took place at a point in space-- this is not the case. There is no centre of the universe, since there is no special place in the universe. Further, the big bang was not an explosion.

The center of the universe is irrelevant and not at issue - what is relevent is the center of the big bang and the dynamics of how the big bang particles are moving away from each other. You are catastrophically wrong, the big bang is indeed an explosion, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck but you claim it is not a duck. I think you are going to find out that the universe is much, much bigger than you think it is. I say that because everything is still moving away from the big bang and what we are looking at is only a small portion. When we locate the center of the big bang you will find an equal size racing away from that epicenter in the opposite direction.

The center of the universe is irrelevant and not at issue - what is relevent is the center of the big bang and the dynamics of how the big bang particles are moving away from each other. You are catastrophically wrong, the big bang is indeed an explosion, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck but you claim it is not a duck.

Erm...

I think you are going to find out that the universe is much, much bigger than you think it is. I say that because everything is still moving away from the big bang and what we are looking at is only a small portion. When we locate the center of the big bang you will find an equal size racing away from that epicenter in the opposite direction.

How do you know how big I think the universe is?

Seriously, I think you need to read the PF rules. It's one thing to come along and ask questions if you're not sure about something, but it's a completely different thing to come along and shout your views and misconceptions as if they were true. Note that the global guidelines state that any discussion must be restricted to published, peer reviewed work and that personal, unpublished theories are not permitted.

Seriously, I think you need to read the PF rules. It's one thing to come along and ask questions if you're not sure about something, but it's a completely different thing to come along and shout your views and misconceptions as if they were true. Note that the global guidelines state that any discussion must be restricted to published, peer reviewed work and that personal, unpublished theories are not permitted.

You are correct - there is no place for me here, so if the administrator will delete my registration I will be on my way. I especially did not like the fourteen year old's thread being closed for no good reason and I suspect I will be next, so I will leave you to your own since you obviously can't deal with my questions and observations.